Delhi Court May 1989 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Surinder Singh Bindra and Others Vs. M/S. Hindustan Fasteners (P.) Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi32; [1990]69CompCas718(Delhi)
ORDER1. This is a petition under Ss. 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioners are four in number and respondents five. The fifth respondent Harjit Singh Bindra, is siding with the petitioners. The first respondent is the company in question. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 are brothers and are alleged to be in control of the affairs of the company. (The term 'respondents' whenever used in this judgment would mean respondents 2, 3 and 4). Various acts of oppression and mismanagement allegedly committed by them have been detailed in the petition. The petitioners claim that they have a right to file the present petition as provided under S. 399 of the Act. When this petition was filed on 18-9-1980, notice was issued to the Central Government as required under S. 400 of the Act, but it was stated by the representative of the Central Government that the Central Government had no representation to make.2. There are three groups involved in the company. These can b...
Indian Cable Company Limited Vs. Prem Chandra Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT87; 1989(17)DRJ53; 1989RLR495
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) In this second appeal, under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', arising out of an order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 10th April 1986 affirming order of eviction of the appellant-tenant made by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the main question of law which has arisen is: whether Clause (b) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act applies to residential premises let out to a company also. (2) The relevant facts lie within a narrow compass. The appellant is a public company having its registered office at Calcutta. The respondent let out his property No. 1 M-11, Greater Kailash No. 11, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the demised premises, to the appellant on terms and conditions contained in a deed of lease executed between the parties on 17th January, 1980. Clause (11) (c) of the lease deed contains one of the lessee's covenants in the followin...
Mohan MeakIn Breweries Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD106(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shr V. P. Elhence, Judicial Member - The assessed in appeal against order dated 22-3-1984 of the learned Commissioner or Income-tax (Appeals) IX, New Delhi for the assessment year 1981-82.2. The assessed M/s. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd., Solan (H. P.) it is a public limited company which runs breweries, distilleries, factories of breakfast food, ice, bottles etc. The first ground relates to the alleged disallowance of Rs. 2,42,341 by way of entertainment expenses. The assessed had claimed in all Rs. 3,01,181 according to the following details :-ParticularsAmount Rs.1. Lunches, dinner etc. at Hotels. 68,8752. Liquor and beer. 13,491 3. Soft drinks, tea and juices etc. 1,09,067 4. Presentations. 22,154 5. Rail and road fare.22,560 6. Ticket for cinema shows. 346 7. Dry fruit on Diwali 4,264 8. Refreshment to companys staff and guests.59,136 9. Misc. expenses.1,288Total3,01,181The Income-tax Officer only allowed Rs. 30,000 under section 37(2A) and disallowed the balance amount of...
Bindal Sugar Works Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD139(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shri S. K. Chander, Accountant Member - By this reference application, the assessed is before us with a prayer that the following question, said to be question of law and said to arise out of the consolidated order to the Tribunal bearing ITA Nos. 5699/DEL/85 and 74/DEL/86 dated 14-6-1988 be referred to the Honorable court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in not allowing grant of depreciation @ 30 per cent on generator ?'2. We have heard the parties, The Tribunal in its order observed that in a number of cases, the Delhi benches on similar set of facts had taken the view that depreciation at 25 per cent on generator is admissible. In our considered opinion, this does not give rise to a referable question of law. Reference application is, thereforee, dismissed.Per Shri S. S. Mehra, Judicial Member - Draft order prepared by my learned Brother has carefully been gone into but it is regretted that I failed to agree with the co...
Kharia Cement Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC37Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is against Order-in-Original No. 25/88-C.E., dated 26-9-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Kharia Cement Works (hereinafter called the appellants), a division of M/s. Lohia Engineering Works Private Ltd., Kanpur, have a factory at Kanpur, manufacturing machines and a factory in Jodhpur District, manufacturing cement. Based on certain investigations, the Collector issued a show cause notice to the appellants alleging that since the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods (save for certain exclusions) manufactured and cleared by the factories at Kharia and Kanpur during the financial years 1984-85 and 1985-86 had exceeded the prescribed ceiling of Rs. 1.5 crores, they were not entitled to the benefit of duty exemption under Central Excise Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986. It was further alleged that since the Kanpur unit had, during 1987-88, availed itself of MOD-VAT credit of ...
Kiran Bedi and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1989
Reported in: 38(1989)DLT270
S.B. Wad, J. (1) In this writ petition the petitioners have sought a mandamus to Delhi Administration to fill up the second vacancy (in the Committee of Inquiry) in accordance with Government of India notification No. F.10(9)/98, dated February 22, 1988. They have also sought direction to the Committee of Inquiry to change the venue of the proceedings to a place outside Delhi. In the stay application a blanket stay of further proceedings before the Committee of Inquiry (till the final disposal of the writ petition) is sought. We have heard this writ petition for five days. On 27th April 1989 when hri K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Advocate for the petitioners concluded his arguments by way of reply to the arguments on behalf of the respondents, he wanted to move an application for amending the writ petition. Since the petition had come at a very late stage and since we had heard the counsel for the petitioners at length, we refused the permission. At the time of the arguments, counsel for the re...
JaIn Plastic Industry and ors. Vs. Gopi Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi51; 38(1989)DLT445
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This is a second appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal Delhi who while reversing the decision of the Additional Rent Controller, allowed the respondent's petition for eviction of the appellant under section 14(l)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') (2) Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') is a tenant of two rooms and two stores located on the ground floor of House No. 1-G. Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. Whereas according to the tenant, the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 6S.00 per month, according to the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') the rent payable was Rs. 68.00 per month plus Rs. 3.00 per month for water charges. (3) On 9th January, 1968 the landlord sent a notice to the tenant claiming arrears of lent with effect from 24th December, 1964 to 23rd December, 1967. It was stated that the tenancy of the premises in question started on 24th day of each ...
Rajinder Prasad JaIn Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT138; 1989RLR317
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The respondent New Delhi Municipal Committee,hereinafter called 'the Committee' is the owner of the building known as Palika Parking. On 30th of December, 1986, the Committee invited tenders for licensing of store/godown space measuring 3088 sq. ft. in Palika Parking opposite Regal building, Connaught Circus New Delhi. Only two tenders were received by the stipulated date. The tender of Shri R.P. Jain, the petitioner herein, offering Rs 7. 51 p. sq. ft. per mensum was the highest. The offer of the petitioner was accepted. As per the terms and conditions of the tender application, the petitioner was asked to deposit the security amounting to Rs. 82,763.52 after adjusting Rs. 10000.00deposited as earnest money,and to months' license fee in advance amounting to Rs. 46,381.76. the petitioner agreed to deposit the amounts asked for but in the meantime,he pointed out that the work in the said premises is still in progress, and the following among other items are required t...
H. P. Nanda and Sons [Huf] Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD193(Delhi); (1989)35TTJ(Del)148
ORDERPer Mehra, Judicial Member - Appellant assessed by present appeal challenges order dated 3-2-1985, of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] New Delhi, passed on an appeal against the assessment order dated 31-12-1984, framed under section 143[3] of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1982-83.2. First issue raised by the appellant it against the confirmation of the disallowance of Rs. 78,167 [claimed as finance charges] being interest said to have been paid on money borrowed from banks. In the present case the assessed by status is HUF whose accounting period was the year ending 31-3-1982. assessed claimed an expenditure of Rs. 78,167 as finance charges, against the income earned from the sale of shares. Learned Income-tax Officer required the assessed to indicate the nature of those charges. Vide letter dated 19-11-1984 it was stated on behalf of the assessed that there was an over draft facility with Grindlays Bank and Mercantile Bank and the opening bala...
income-tax Officer Vs. Kamal Engg. Works.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD123(Delhi)
ORDERPer V. P. Elhence, Judicial Member - The department is aggrieved of the order dated 12-4-1985 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Bareilly whereby he cancelled the penalty of Rs. 11,658 levied by the Income-tax Officer u/s 271(1) (c) for the A. Y. 1978-79.2. The assessed M/s Kamal Engineering Works, Civil Lines, Rampur carries on the business of manufacture of distillate plant and repair work. For the assessment year in question, the assessed declared an income of Rs. 22, 270 whereas assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer on an income of Rs. 1,22,070 after making the following additions :Rs.(i) Extra profit addition14,951(ii) Addition by way of concealed sales to M/s. Lalji Mentha (P.) Ltd.84,940 Total99,891Accordingly the ITO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) and after considering the assesseds reply to the show-cause notice, he levied a penalty of Rs. 11,658 u/s 271(1) (c).3. In appeal the learned CIT (A) noticed that in the assesseds appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »